Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
.s. policy in afghanistan and iraq. we want to begin the segment by talking with the defense policy reporter with bloomberg news. she joins us by phone. she has traveled with defense and that i ton patte iraq. talk about what you heard the defense secretary do while he was overseas. guest: it was interesting to watch secretary panetta and compare how he handled the trip and his interaction with troops and with foreign leaders to secretary gates. he has fairly big shoes to f ill, according to people who were quite complementary. leon panetta also has a lot of familiarity with u.s. military forces. forces. with the commanders and foreign leaders that he is meeting with and going to be interacting with. with his experience as cia director for more than two years before taking this job and in other capacities, for example, a member of iraq study group that did the independent assessment in 2006 of the war in iraq. host: was specifically was the defense secretary trying to accomplish on this trip? guest: he wanted to go out and touch base with the troops themselves and make that connection. it is
and afghanistan. and my belief that there is a smarter way to achieve our national security goals. and so, madam speaker, since that day i stood here in this spot to say over and over again that these wars are eroding our spiritual core. bankrupting us morally and fiscally. teaching our children that warfare is the new normal. i have delivered these speeches as a member of the majority and the minority when the president was a member of my party and when he was not, and today i am doing it for the 400th time. when i began the war in iraq was still quite popular. as was the president who launched it. but we spoke out anyway, refusing to bend on principle because we knew that we did not belong there. my colleagues, representative barbara lee and representative maxine waters and i, we called ourselves the triad, started the out of iraq caucus. we first -- forced the first house vote to bring our troops home. along the way i visited iraq, i tried and i learned on that trip and my opinion was confirmed against that very war, but at the same time it increased my admiration for our troops. gradually th
military engagements in iraq, afghanistan, and now libya. i speak of the need also of a new smart security to keep america safe. today will be my 399th speech. i look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and i will continue this until my last day as a member of congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1 1/2 years, time to bring our troops safely home. during this week, the week that the house is debating the appropriations, i thought it would be fitting to focus on more spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupation. $10 billion a month is a lot of money, and that's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against afghanistan. $10 billion a month. the american people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions. where is that money going and what exactly is it accomplishing? what are we getting for our $10 billion a month? are we more secure here at home? is the afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? have we not already de
and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader,
it comes to discussing the merits of continuing our efforts in afghanistan, the republicans clamor to defend it despite our fiscal mess. i want to remind my republican friends the situation we are in now is not new. throughout history from rome to the ottoman empire to the soviet union the over extension of military and protracted struggles in foreign countries has crippled empires. some historians have credited ronald reagan for the soviet union's collapse but what really bankrupted the soviet union was its wars, just like us, they paid a crushing price both financially and morally in afghanistan. overextending geopolitically comes at a cost over time in any nation that thinks otherwise is setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past. as of today, the united states has spent more than 2 1/2 times the percentage of g.d.p. on afghanistan that the -- than the soviet union spent on its g.d.p. during its nine-year war in afghanistan. public polls are clear, americans know the cost of the war in afghanistan is unsustainable and want us to withdraw as soon as possible. when it co
of honorable and distinguished service, but the fact remains that the fundamental realities in afghanistan haven't changed. "the new york times" put it plainly, noting that the general is, and i quote them, "the general is leaving behind a country racked by deep political instability whose fledging security forces are fighting a weakened but deadly insurgency that kills coalition troops and afghan civilians and officials nearly every day." that's a pretty damning assessment, mr. speaker, and it's accurate. in recent weeks two of president karzai's most powerful allies, including his brother, have been gunned down by the taliban. and ordinary afghan citizens are caught in the line of fire as never, never before. the u.n. recently reported that more afghan civilians were killed in the first half of 2011 than in any other six-month period since the war began. some these casualties are the accidental result of errant attacks and night raids by u.s. and nato forces. but the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths came at the hands of insurgents often using suicide bombers. there were nearly 1,
of other members of congress, there were warlords from the northern alliance of afghanistan that wanted to meet with us because we were told that the administration didn't want to meet with them and after we met with them it was clear why the administration wouldn't want to. now, i was not aware and it was during the bush administration, of course, our initial actions in afghanistan, we sent in intelligence, we sent in special forces, we sent in weaponry, we equipped the northern alliance tribes who had a special personal interest in defeating the taliban. and afghanistan as a whole had seen how evil the taliban was. how much damage they could do to society as they burned paintings and books and films and totally suppressed freedom in afghanistan. they knew. these people were evil but they were afraid of them but with the united states weaponry, with our guidance and intelligence training these people defeated the taliban. what i was not aware of until we met with these folks and turns out i could have been aware, i just was not, but do you the research, you find out, the bush administr
a loved one in afghanistan. ethan and stephanie, bowing here at arlington cemetery, lost their father on may 12 of this year. the sergeant, who was stationed at camp lejeune marine base, and another was sent with the mission to train afghan citizens to become police. the men had just sat down to dinner when a rogue trainee opened fire killing both men. in an email to his wife the day before he died, the sergeant said, and i quote, i don't trust them. i don't trust them for anything, not anything at all. this brings me to a quote from a.c. snow's recent column tiled "time to bring them home: let them live." mr. snow is a well-known correspondent in north carolina. and i quote, it seems we never run out of wars. it is as if one small country after another sends out a grave's invitation reading, we're having a war, please come. and uncle sam borrows millions to offer freedom our nation building. mr. speaker, i go back to the two little girls in this picture. how many more children will be at the grave site of a loved one? how many more have to known the pain of war? i further quote from
a group of army soldiers who were returning home from the front lines in afghanistan with a bill for almost $3,000 or $200 a piece for each soldier to check four bags on a scheduled domestic flight. americans were right low outraged by the incident -- rightly outraged by the incident which was posted in a youles tube video. the fourth bag, for which he was charged $200, contained an import carbine rifle, a .9 millimeter pistol. a spokesman for the veterans of foreign wars told the associated press the fees were the worst welcome home any soldier could receive. the shock of even being charged is enough to make service men and women simply shake their heads and wonder who or what it is they are protecting, end quote. members of the armed forces who are serving our country on the front lines should not endure personal financial hardship when they are traveling to or returning from war zones. yet, the media's reporting of the incident last month showed that major u.s. carriers were applying the same or similar policies across the board. airlines were charging soldiers to check four r
billion on katrina. in afghanistan we spend $325 billion -- million a day and in iraq we've spent about $100 million a day. that's almost $1 billion a day. we're talking about $950 -- almost $1 billion in light rail. we can both be right and smart and compassionate if we do the right thing. in our budgeting process we should have an unexpected fund for unforeseen circumstances, we should have learned from katrina. we're looking at probably about $4 billion in term of army corps of engineers. i think our leaderships need to get together and just say that we can do this without fighting among each other, without making each other wrong. because that's wrong. in the eyes of the public, they want us to do the job that needs to get done and have our leadership do that. and so my plea is that we can be fiscally responsible and we can be compassionate and we do that with good planning and good budgeting process, including having contingency funds that should have been there. and so we have an opportunity right now to show the public that we can do all these things and still come out winners fo
of iraq and afghanistan, it would take a serious look out of social security and medicare and in many cases contributing to this deficit. and it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the president can sign it and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take us in the right direction. but we don't have something like that. instead we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the constitution, the guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies can make profits is completely left alone. he doesn't have to do anything. but for the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children and her parents and more for just about anything she wants in her life. there's something wrong with that picture. sacrifice that is broadly shared is needed in
their lives in the service of our nation in iraq and afghanistan and their families and of all who serve in our armed forces and their families. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a railroaded -- vord -- recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-181, offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a two-minute vote, followed by a series of additional two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote, the ye
that they're bringing back, they are companies specifically going after returning iraq and afghanistan veterans to be able to hire them. it was interesting, we were talking about drilling and you go into a drilling platform and they say their favorite people to be able to hire are tank drivers returning from the war zone because they're used to driving equipment, looking on a screen and dealing with multiple things all at once. these are folks employing our veterans and they're engaged in providing great jobs. i was on a fracking site, being able to watch it. it's high tech job, people on computers, as well as people in pumping, trucks, people providing food, people providing the equipment, it's people with big wrenches and people with small computers. and you see this multitude of different jobs provided by oil and natural gas and by fossil fuels we're producing right here in america. we are at a moment that we can either say, we want all green jobs, we want to destroy the jobs producing fossil fuels, or we can say, let's do both. let's encourage the growth of green jobs but let's not
're putting money in other places like to the war, places like that in afghanistan, to other wars. that is my question. guest: two interesting things your question brings up. when fdr desigd so security, he said, we're going to put it on your checks every week so you will see it being taken out and you will note it is there for you. that was very, very important to fdr and the preservation of the social safety net. also, he said, we are going to make sure that every time >> "washington journal" begins live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. live to capitol hill now. oklahoma senator tom coburn is about to release his plan to cut the deficit by $9 trillion over the next decade. >> good afternoon. thank you for being here. let me first of all thank my staff, who has worked thousands of hours the last six weeks to accumulate, sifted through every agency and every program of the federal government. you are going to see in this report details like you have never seen. this is a plan, not the only plan, but it is the only plan that will put our country back on a footing in needs to be put on. it i
not be able to do things militarily to support our troops in afghanistan and iraq. i view this, i think it bears close watching, but there is a perception that somehow we're giving our china, india, brazil and other countries an advantage. i view this program as a two-way street. it does provide a degree of access to american companies and so i would be also reluctant -- i reluctantly oppose your amendment but i can assure you that both of us feel very strongly that it bears watching. it has borne some fruit. mr. frelinghuysen: it's not money wasted, it's not money given away to competitors. thank you for yielding. mr. visclosky: but again, i think it draws attention that we should be closely monitoring these funds. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from fey rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. broun: i'd like to yield to dr. harris from maryland. mr. harris: let me briefly address this so we can move on. we only cut $6 million out of the $8 million. there's budget language further on t
in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incompetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i listen to my friend from the other side
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16